Before getting to the third 'revising addition' to Deconstructing the Universe, and believing I had finally finished it, the previous two posts here, "Breaking Probability Waves" and "Shattering Time" were added at the end of it. Looking back on it, and mentioning more fully why I call them revising additions, was because after I wrote each one and then reread the previous 8, each time the previous ones seemed to be about something different. I was seeing what I had written before in a new light or from a new perspective, so to speak. That reverb was to compound itself exponentially and is mentioned, parts of it anyway, many times in the full 5D notes, parts 1 through 6, and even in things between this written below here, Christmas 2002, and the full notes which began in October of 2003. This is an excerpt from the full text which will follow it, but as in the first post here, it also explains a bit how writing it was changing me as a person. As I put in the final introduction to Deconstructing the Universe, "The future is uncertain, but isn't it always? That should never surprise us, but it always does. You may not learn anything from reading it, or you might, but I could more than fill all of the books in all of the libraries in the world if I tried to explain how much and in how many ways I have grown as a person in getting to its end."
After Deconstructing the Universe was completed, three separate times counting the postscripts (this I can tell would have been written in just after or on Christmas 2002, right after "Shattering Time". As a sequel, I would like to write, "How to glue time back together again". That would not be as easy), again I am left with hanging thoughts of a mind that fails to recognize an off switch. At least two (paragraphs) of which will be placed at the beginning of Deconstructing the Universe, something which is best reread after each end, for both postscripts redefine all which came before them. (Eventually there were 8 postscript sections added. At the time, each of the first two postscripts added seemed to cast the previous sections in a different light. I am far beyond that now. I can say that the 1.8 version and the original, though still there, seem different in purpose. I was different too.) In a way each life is a redefinition of all which came before them. Upon each revision, or each redefinition, there are those which are not contradicted and new ideas hinted at which begin to emerge when trying to synthesize them into a coherent whole.
Life is equally complex and real truths are best written between the lines, either that or we just see and apply new meaning to what is not really there which we wish was, some deeper meaning or purpose or logic (which we did not see the first time around) which we wish to impose upon it. That life itself exists as interactions between individuals lives, that time lies in-between individual moments, and that truth lies between (different) individuals' conception of it, is hinted at upon the rereads (to me anyway, at that time, and is said ad nausea since then in the Notes) after the postscripts of Deconstructing the Universe, but to say that openly, plainly, without having to work at it to understand it in your own way or coming to realize it all on your own, it is just words, smug words, portending to some higher realization in the end just another construct no more real than any other, some more over simplified nonsense in a world as infinitely complex as you wish to make it (by imagining it to be).
(Note: Before putting the full text, when I put it on the web previously, I wrote this as an Introduction page to it in 2005.)
I found some older stuff recently and decided to put them here. The first one was written just after Deconstructing the Universe was finished for the first time before the current 1.8 version. It talks about why I wrote it. I learned something from reading it and was kind of curious why I wrote it.It seems I might have had a reason after all. It does a good job at explaining how the 3 books (Deconstructing the Universe, Towards Tomorrow, and Morality: Individual and Social) were connected, at least how I thought they were at the time. For me that was all long ago and far away, so I will have to take my own word for it that they are connected at all. At least once I know now that I thought so. The other I was typing up recently at the same time and it may have been written around the same time (I can place the first one below around Christmas 2002 or on Christmas day). ...
Heretic Papers II- Beyond the End of the Universe (retitled Tying the Books Together in 2005)
After finishing "Morality: Individual and Social," the idea got stuck in my head at its end that what people will think in the future is not beyond us now, it is just the things we are not ready to accept. None of the things we call improvements to our societies socially now were unheard of 50 or 100 years ago, they were just unsettling the majority of people then. The aim of "Towards Tomorrow" was to move beyond the present and kick over a few sacred stones of beliefs to see what might lurk beneath them, or see if their foundations were really that sound. It was meant to be disruptive, controversial, but in the end lost its edge, shifted into a different mode, and became something else; understanding how we can define time and where we are possibly heading, and what we might be able to do about that, about the future and the time definition of ourselves.
After Towards Tomorrow was done, many different ideas kept popping into my head, paragraphs self-contained about various things Towards Tomorrow did not address, and where it failed in its original intent to think outside the box of what is acceptable in this time, to go beyond the current mindsets of this time and society more completely in search of truth regardless of what is conventional, accepted, or safe. Something which I call gloves-off or bare-knuckled philosophy, not being held back by anything, afraid of offending no one, letting only the abstract notion of truth matter.
This is impossible to do on so many levels, to be able to truly think beyond the bounds, conventions, and biases of ones own time, people, and civilizations. We can gleam a few perspectives from the past, (what we are allowed to know or think about it by current governments), postulate about how other more advanced species might perceive things, or extrapolate on how those in the future might see things as humanity matures, and more of its denizens have greater and unrestricted access to its histories, all of them, not just which versions their present societies wish to stress for their own political purposes which are nothing more than caricatures of the past constructed to validate or support the current beliefs into "instant traditions" more often than not at odds with the past they claim to be upholding.
The results of those paragraphs were assembled into a slightly more coherent collection by placing them together and giving it a title called "The Heretic Papers", taken after its best paragraph which fully realized the intent of wanting to go beyond what people now think, hold sacred, unquestioning, and treads on it mercilessly yet reverently, not out of spite nor animosity, but in the simple and pure pursuit of truth. Of that one small paragraph, the pious of many faiths would find both much that is provoking, (heretical), yet also something which is true and beautiful. That such truth and beauty are seemingly at the expense of cherished beliefs, many would undoubtedly see as disturbing and unnecessarily harsh, distorting, and that is for those who could see past that at all.
Of The Heretic Papers, or those few dozen paragraphs I refer to as The Heretic Papers, they really do go beyond what some devoutly religious people might want to withstand or be exposed to. Generally I am respectful to all persons' beliefs, their various levels of tolerance and intolerance, and therefore decided they are not really for general consumption, though writing them was a bit of a catharsis. Yet as Morality: Individual and Social led directly to Towards Tomorrow, chasing those truths or insights we are really not ready for quite yet, but we are capable of perceiving and how that was not really addressed (enough) by Towards Tomorrow, the collection of ideas in those original Heretic Papers, born out of the same original motivation for (writing) Towards Tomorrow, were assembled in a more coherent, more structured, less controversial form into Deconstructing the Universe.
Many varied factors contributed to Deconstructing the Universe. What I termed bare-knuckled philosophy, truly trying to think outside the bounds of ones own time, conventions, and social beliefs, and the results of that were a key part. My father's illness was another key factor. The Heretic Papers was probably the last thing I ever wrote which he would have been able to comprehend. He always talked of writing a book that would reveal more to humanity than they were ready for or expecting. Whether he could have done that, it is impossible to say, for now it is not likely he even will have such a chance.
That I am not capable doing such, now any number of people are now qualified to say, for I have attempted just that, to go beyond what people now are capable of understanding which may make sense or more sense to people a dozen or a hundred years from now, to do it for him to show him that even the things we are not able to do that we wished to do, that somehow everything gets done eventually, however indirectly. I doubt anyone can know (with certainty) what people will find relevant a hundred years from now, but to set our sights that high; to attempt to look beyond our world today, our present beliefs of our own time or place in history to see beyond our own horizons to what is or may be true beyond them, such attempts are good and valuable even if the results of which are worthless in and of themselves.
Philosophy when it works best is done in layers. Take what has come before and add to it, build upon it. What people believe now, that which has worth and will withstand the test of time if it is left unsheltered enough to meet all challenges, will at best provide ONLY a foundation for new outlooks we might only catch glimpses of today. The past and previous outlooks need to be incorporated into future ones, and not dominate them, nor restrain them, nor seek to prevent them from arising. Religions are great bearers of the past to the future, and many ideas and ideals would not have survived without being encapsulated into them, yet it is a sad thing when many great ideas of different faiths are not taught or stressed in others because they are perceived as being foreign, outside of ones own religion, and to even think of such thing would be to be unfaithful to ones own religion or people. Religions have kept many great ideas and viewpoints intact for thousands of years, but it is that very rigidity of walls between faiths which keeps good ideas and outlooks from being shared by all.
If someone were to take a notion like honesty and build a religion around it which became dominant, that notion would get entangled with that religion, and to people of other religions, honesty would have connotations to a particular (foreign) religion. I am not saying other religions necessarily would become less honest, just that it should not deserve by being stressed so highly by one group, as to become identified with one group over the other. But that would probably happen. Thus if someone seems overtly honest, you could call that person disparagingly as the term for that group, one of those honesty nuts from that other religion.
Many good notions have been incorporated and identifiable as being stressed by some religions yet it is those very religious connotations which helped them survive which may keep them from spreading, as if by buying into one notion or belief you must ascribe to an entire belief system, or that you are unfaithful to your own faith by considering views which are parts of religions outside of your own faith. The pursuit of truth ought not to be hindered by who had which beliefs first or which group stresses which values more. The free flow of ideas ought to include all views, not just economic, governmental, and scientific. Those systems are evolving by and large by what works best regardless of how or where it originated, yet with some philosophical and religious ideas, changes seem destined only to create new fractures and vying versions and sects because there are few ways or means to incorporate outside ideas into them to grow or evolve.
I do not necessarily believe what we believe philosophically or religiously will or ought to be believed ten thousand years from now just as no religions from ten thousand years ago are dominant today. Whatever new belief systems emerge will have a part of our beliefs in them or will in some way have grown out of them (and away from them), just as they who will hold and believe them will have grown out of us and our lives. I do not claim to know what those beliefs systems will be like, nor would I necessarily hold them to be more true, but I hope they are tried and true battle tested through rigorous comparisons against contentious contenders without appearing to corner the market or have a trademark on any particular value or belief over any others, and that they will be what we all are, stronger for coming from many different sources into one being.
After Deconstructing the Universe was completed, three separate times counting the postscripts, again I am left with hanging thoughts of a mind that fails to recognize an off switch. At least two (paragraphs) of which will be placed at the beginning of Deconstructing the Universe, something which is best reread after each end, for both postscripts redefine all which came before them. In a way each life is a redefinition of all which came before them. Upon each revision, or each redefinition, there are those which are not contradicted and new ideas hinted at which begin to emerge when trying to synthesize them into a coherent whole.
Life is equally complex and real truths are best written between the lines, either that or we just see and apply new meaning to what is not really there which we wish was, some deeper meaning or purpose or logic (which we did not see the first time around) which we wish to impose upon it. That life itself exists as interactions between individual's lives, that time lies in-between individual moments, and that truth lies between (different) individuals' conception of it, is hinted at upon the rereads after the postscripts of Deconstructing the Universe, but to say that openly, plainly, without having to work at it to understand it in your own way or coming to realize it all on your own, it is just words, smug words, portending to some higher realization in the end just another construct no more real than any other, some more over simplified nonsense in a world as infinitely complex as you wish to make it (by imagining it to be).
Again I have decided to group together these self-contained hanging paragraphs and try to sort out some order of them. From the first Heretic Papers, Deconstructing the Universe emerged, and again these paragraphs, written without regard to present sensibilities are probably best kept under wraps but they seem less likely to be misunderstood, and hopefully this has attested to why one ought to step outside what one ought to think once in awhile, challenge everything that is known or believed on occasion, to attempt to glimpse the Universe beyond our own minds, beliefs, and mindsets. It is ALWAYS heretical, and depending on your society, sometimes (such questioning is) illegal, but always can lead to something more, something valuable, something which now only exists as potential, good or bad, which like us will be judged for its value only once it has been attained, realized, and known. And in the end, not realizing it, not conceiving of it as an option, letting some truths go unknown until the end of time, it is not even a possible viable option. Truth will seek us out to become known, even and most often when, we spurn it.
(Note: Not much to add here because there were no notes at the end of it like with the previous other two. But I did use a quote from the above paragraph to kick off my first full new (at least the intended one) post on TruthRevival.org in over a year. The much alluded to 'Higher ground' one. It was finalized as "Newer more uncertain ground and a wider variety of pasts" which was posted April 15th, 2009. The following essay below really is not connected to the notes at all but was written the same day or within a day or two of the above, so I figured since there was nothing to add, why not put that here too.)
Man vs. Animals: Trading Freedom for Cooperation
Choice is one of the most important aspects of intellectual life, and control must be included as a consequence or contributor to choice. Without possessing choice, freewill or some degree of control over our own lives, we may live, but intellectually we are dead. This may seem strange to some, separating intellectual life from biological life. After all, in this world we each have only one life, or at least only one at a one time for those who wish to think they will or have had more than one. I do not by making this distinguishment between intellectual life and biological life mean to imply there are two lives, nor two different aims or goals; one for the body and one for the mind. Certainly such distinctions are there to be made, though not relevant I think to the simple assertion that life as we define it, that which we possess some degree of responsibility for because we are conscious of ourselves and our lives, and to some degree our potentials and the consequences for what we do or fail to do, depends upon possessing both the choice among different courses of action, and the control, power, or freedom to pursue those differing avenues of events and possibilities.
Such differing notions of life and responsibility for ones actions is best typified by how we view the distinction between human actions and those species we identify as animals. Animals are not burdened by us to be thought of generally as good or evil, as they behave as they do primarily on instinct rather than what we call learned behavior. They react as they do in situations as their genetics up until their existence best prepared them to behave, so goes the belief anyway. What animals do is supposedly what is in their nature to do, and is generally not viewed in moral terms. Because we possess seemingly more awareness of our actions, their contexts and consequences for others, we are viewed quite differently as a species of individuals very much in moral terms. We are not free to behave as animals would nor would most wish to live in a society where others behaved as such toward ourselves. We put up walls of what is acceptable behavior, those who always keep their actions within the strictest of these confines we term to be moral people and with moral terms; good, decent, righteous. Those whose actions stray from those confines we term either the individuals or the actions in moral terms as well, bad, evil, or unholy.
The degree of freedom of an animal and the degree of freedom of a man or woman too, are not on the same playing field. Animals excepting those who live in herds or groups generally have unlimited freedom of action depending only on their perceived choices and their natural abilities. But beyond their own abilities, their survival is limited only to what they themselves can do to keep themselves alive. I exclude those who live in herds and groups from this analogy because they too may have special rules to adhere to, can be shunned from the aid of the group, and can benefit from others aid should they be hurt, hungry, or otherwise in need.
The freedom of Man in comparison to that of an animal is on the surface far lessened. The bounds of behavior are as complex and as confining as ones intelligence can imagine or allow, and the bounds of behavior allowed or condoned fluctuates literally on a daily basis with too many rules for one to be able to name. Between every law and every custom and every tradition, much of our consciousnesses are very much preoccupied with making sure we are doing whatever we are doing correctly and within the confines of acceptable behavior for remaining within our given or perceived group. The trade-off for this, as in all species which live in groups, is that we never so to speak, walk alone.
Should an animal or outsider attack us, another of our species or group will come to our aid. Should we grow sick, another would care for us and bring us food until we are well. This is of course relative, and varies with different groups. Most often threats to ourselves come not from other species, but other members of our own species, and depending upon whom, or to what group they belong, others coming to our aid if attacked is far from assured. Other factors enter into it as well. Maybe that person deserved to be beaten or killed. Maybe he or she was a bad person who did bad things. Maybe, some speculate due to such reasonings, maybe the good person is the aggressor protecting us from the other person who would do bad things otherwise. Without such knowledge (or explanations which may or may not be valid) or context to place events within conceptually, all policemen would be just people who chase, beat up, and shoot others, and all executions would just be more murders. Not always knowing the context of something prevents us from knowing within our own minds and desires to stay within the bounds of acceptable behavior can keep us from helping another. Maybe he is bad and did something to deserve it, or maybe the attackers are part of a group or gang one dares not provoke or anger.
Variable too are the chances for aid one would receive were one to become ill or weak and unable to work, the modern equivalent of finding food in the animal analogy, which would of course be stealing if one were to do simply that, finding food. If one becomes too weak to do something which ones society finds worthy of giving one food for, or is unable to find something to do which would result in having food, how much help one would receive would depend upon ones culture, government, and circumstances. Primarily family groups used to care for members sick or infirm until they were well and could acquire food or the means to obtain food themselves. Now in many societies, social changes have led to the local or national governments taking over a supporting role in caring for the weak, sick, and those unable to work, and this has allowed family members to recede from this role. Governments, national and local, around the world vary greatly in how much help and for how long, and who qualifies for such help.
Because it is often not clear who ultimately who in a government or society is responsible for such people, many societies have the majority of people willing to simply bypass or overlook these people as if they do not exist until they simply die of malnutrition or starvation. If large pockets of people dying of starvation elsewhere exists, governments will sometimes send food to those regions for awhile, but generally societies slowly will weed out the people they do no wish to have simply by overlooking them until they die in a gutter somewhere if they cannot find someone to give them food, if they cannot find a way to obtain it for themselves. They do not have to even prohibit people from aiding them anymore. Most have been conditioned not to think or care about it much, and are more than willing to look away.
Posts
